Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Shankar Lal Jat vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 November, 2020

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon

$~VC-12
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 9076/2020
      SHANKAR LAL JAT                                   ..... Petitioner
                   Through:             Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate

                          versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                  ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr.Jaswinder Singh, CGSC with
                             Mr.Sameer Sinha, GP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
              ORDER

%             18.11.2020
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
CM No. 29271/2020 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 9076/2020

3. The petitioner, an Assistant Commandant in the respondents Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), has filed this petition impugning the signal dated 1st September, 2020 and letter dated 6th October, 2020 rejecting the representation of the petitioner with respect to his seniority in the gradation list of Assistant Commandants and seeking mandamus directing the respondents CRPF to fix the seniority of the petitioner at par with his colleagues of the 44th Batch to which he was originally selected and as per his merit in the 44th Batch, with all consequential benefits.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, (i) he participated in the recruitment process for appointment as Assistant Commandant in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), pursuant to the advertisement of August, 2010; (ii) on being successful in the recruitment process, he was issued an appointment letter dated 8th February, 2013 by the respondents CRPF; (iii) vide Gazette Notification dated 18th March, 2013, he was appointed to the 44th Batch of Directly Appointed Gazetted Officers (DAGOs) and training thereof was in three Batches labelled (A), (B) & (C);

(iv) the petitioner was allocated the 44th (C) Batch; (v) the training of the 44th (C) Batch commenced on 24th March, 2013, which the petitioner joined;

(vi) during training, on 7th July, 2013, the petitioner met with an accident during horse vaulting and was hospitalised; (vii) the Court of Enquiry constituted to look into the incident found accident to be not attributable to the petitioner and regularised the treatment period as the same was owing to no fault of the petitioner, but because of his medical unfitness to join back the training, relegated the petitioner to the next batch; (viii) the petitioner thus undertook the remaining training with the 45th Batch of DAGOs which commenced in February, 2014 and was completed in February, 2015; (ix) in the gradation list of the year 2014 of the Assistant Commandants, the name of the petitioner figured in the 44th Batch; (x) though the petitioner had undertaken training with the 45th Batch but his probation period ended with the 44th Batch; (xi) however in the gradation lists of the years 2015 and 2016, the seniority of the petitioner was further downgraded; (xii) though the petitioner, on 14th March, 2017 was given Senior Time Scale treating him to be DAGO of the 44th Batch but seniority of the petitioner was maintained with the DAGOs of the 45th batch in the Gradation Lists of the W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 2 of 5 years 2017, 2018 and 2019; (xiii) the petitioner represented against the downgrading of his seniority and which representations have been rejected by the impugned communications of 1st September, 2020 and 6th October, 2020.

5. On enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner clarifies that the petitioner has now been placed at the bottom of the 45th Batch of DAGOs. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the challenge in this petition is on two grounds. Firstly, that the respondents CRPF having treated the petitioner as belonging to the 44th Batch for the purposes of completion of probation, in the gradation list of the year 2014 and for the purposes of grant of Senior Time Scale, cannot, for the purposes of seniority treat the petitioner as a DAGO of the 45th Batch. Secondly, that the seniority of the petitioner, as per Rule 6 of the CRPF Recruitment Rules, 2010, has to be of the 44th Batch.

6. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, that when the petitioner admittedly did not complete the training along with the 44th Batch, even if for reasons attributable to service conditions and not the petitioner, how can the petitioner retain the seniority in the 44th Batch as per the merit in the recruitment process and be given seniority above those who completed the training nearly one year prior to the petitioner.

7. We have similarly enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, how can the petitioner be given seniority above the 45th Batch when the petitioner admittedly did not participate or compete with the recruits of the 45th Batch. It has further been enquired, whether not the Rule of a person being not entitled to seniority from a date prior to being born in the cadre, as held in K. Meghachandra Singh Vs. Ningam Siro (2020) 5 SCC 689 would apply.

8. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the dicta of this Court in Venkatesh Vs. Union of India 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12909 and order dated 16th December, 2019 in W.P. (C) 10303/2019 titled S.R. Arun Kumar Vs. Union of India, copies whereof have been filed as Annexure P- 13 and P-14 respectively. It is argued that while Venkatesh supra is a judgment on the aspect that a person cannot be made to suffer anything attributable to the duty, S.R. Arun Kumar supra is a judgment on the aspect that even if for reasons not attributable to a person, the person is relegated to the next Batch, the same cannot affect his seniority.

9. We have perused S.R. Arun Kumar supra and find that the petitioner therein undertook training with 44th (A) Batch and owing to absence not attributable to him, though should have been relegated to 44th (B) or (C) Batch, was allocated to the 45th Batch. Reasoning that since the respondents themself had relegated the petitioner therein to the 45th Batch even though could have relegated him from training with the 44th (B) or (C) batch, they could not affect his seniority, the petition was allowed.

10. The counsel for the respondents CRPF appearing on advance notice has drawn attention to the letter dated 6th October, 2020 to contend that the seniority of the petitioner has been placed at the bottom of the 44th Batch and above the 45th Batch. However, the counsel for the petitioner controverts.

11. We have also drawn the attention of the counsels to our judgment dated 11th August, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.3899/2020 titled Hemant Kumar Vs. Union of India and to our order dated 21st October, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.7214/2020 titled Ravi Kumar Vs. Union of India .

12. The matter requires consideration.

13. Issue notice.

14. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondents CRPF.

15. Counter affidavit be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within further four weeks thereafter.

16. List on 24th February, 2021.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J ASHA MENON, J NOVEMBER 18, 2020 SU W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 5 of 5